Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

I'm going by what you just said: Ergo, it is always a requirement placed on someone who says "that's not true" to prove him wrong... Who is the someone?

Exactly. You are making the claim "this is true." Then, instead of supporting the claim, you require someone else to "prove you wrong." Since we lack enough evidence to either support or refute the claims you are making, you are safe in your cocoon of belief having offload any responsibility for defending the beliefs. When someone says, "there is not enough evidence," you turn it into "your beliefs are false" and respond to that argument instead of the one actually made.

Except you could not provide a standard that would be acceptable to historians - primarily because it deals with a supernatural event. So there is literally no evidence that the Christian could provide to justify his position. It is a rigged game from the start.

I provided the standard used by historians. You are turning "inability to provide an exact outcome" with "arbitrary" - thereby redefining the word so it fits your argument. Historical methodology is not arbitrary. It simply can never produce an exact, absolute result. Science is much that way as well. There is nothing new here. Just your repeated misuse of language to support a position you cannot otherwise support.

Of course it does - to the narrow minded...

Actually - to anyone able to actually follow an argument as made.

[seer]

Exactly. You are making the claim "this is true." Then, instead of supporting the claim, you require someone else to "prove you wrong." Since we lack enough evidence to either support or refute the claims you are making, you are safe in your cocoon of belief having offload any responsibility for defending the beliefs. When someone says, "there is not enough evidence," you turn it into "your beliefs are false" and respond to that argument instead of the one actually made.

I provided the standard used by historians. You are turning "inability to provide an exact outcome" with "arbitrary" - thereby redefining the word so it fits your argument. Historical methodology is not arbitrary. It simply can never produce an exact, absolute result. Science is much that way as well. There is nothing new here. Just your repeated misuse of language to support a position you cannot otherwise support.

Then tell me what is the standard that historians would use to confirm the historicity of the resurrection?

[carpedm9587]

Then tell me what is the standard that historians would use to confirm the historicity of the resurrection?

You have already determined, and I have agreed, that historical methodology cannot address the supernatural. Ergo - there is no way that I know of to make a positive claim about "what happened" with respect to any miracle attributed to Jesus of Nazareth (or anyone else, for that matter). This would include the resurrection. You cannot claim to know it happened - and I cannot claim to know it did not.

[JonathanL]

Ecree.

ECREE isn't a valid epistemological approach. All you're saying by alluding to "ECREE" is that you're so entrenched in your prior beliefs that you will reject any evidence that goes against those beliefs. ECREE is all about the psychological state of the person alluding to it, and what it would take to convince him personally, it doesn't say anything about the validity or strength of the evidence that would be required before one is justified to adopt or reject a certain belief.

Or to put it another way, the ECREE slogan reveals more about the people aping it, than it says anything meaningful about being justified in your beliefs about something.

[seer]

You have already determined, and I have agreed, that historical methodology cannot address the supernatural. Ergo - there is no way that I know of to make a positive claim about "what happened" with respect to any miracle attributed to Jesus of Nazareth (or anyone else, for that matter). This would include the resurrection. You cannot claim to know it happened - and I cannot claim to know it did not.

So the theist has no historical avenue to justify his belief in miracles. Yet when I take the resurrection claim on face value you required historical justifications from me.

[carpedm9587]

So the theist has no historical avenue to justify his belief in miracles.

That is the conclusion you came to - remember? I simply agreed with you.

Yet when I take the resurrection claim on face value you required historical justifications from me.

If you assert a historical truth - without a historical basis - then you are asserting something you cannot substantiate. You have no basis. That has been my position from the outset. The fact that it is impossible to make historical claims about miracles is simply the way it is. It is your problem not mine. I'm not trying to assert historical claims about miracles. You are. And you keep running into the wall of your inability to substantiate those historical claims - yet you continue to make them.

The position is a very odd one. If you cannot make historical claims, then just don't make historical claims. Or acknowledge that you are holding a belief about a historical event that you cannot substantiate. Either is a consistent position. But asserting that you can make a claim about a historical event and then noting that you cannot make a historical claim about that event is just outright contradictory.

[seer]

That is the conclusion you came to - remember? I simply agreed with you.

Right, because I knew no historian could confirm the miraculous using their basis methods.

If you assert a historical truth - without a historical basis - then you are asserting something you cannot substantiate. You have no basis. That has been my position from the outset. The fact that it is impossible to make historical claims about miracles is simply the way it is. It is your problem not mine. I'm not trying to assert historical claims about miracles. You are. And you keep running into the wall of your inability to substantiate those historical claims - yet you continue to make them.

There you go again, requiring historical justification when the historical method can not apply. That is why I take the claims of the NT writers at face value, until I have good reason to doubt them.

The position is a very odd one. If you cannot make historical claims, then just don't make historical claims. Or acknowledge that you are holding a belief about a historical event that you cannot substantiate. Either is a consistent position. But asserting that you can make a claim about a historical event and then noting that you cannot make a historical claim about that event is just outright contradictory.

No, I'm saying that I do take the resurrection as an historical event, as the writers relay, but the historical method which is restricted to mundane or natural events can not speak to the issue. But that casts no doubt on the veracity of the claims. Why should it?

[carpedm9587]

Right, because I knew no historian could confirm the miraculous using their basis methods.

Then we are in agreement.

There you go again, requiring historical justification when the historical method can not apply. That is why I take the claims of the NT writers at face value, until I have good reason to doubt them.

Seer - do you know of any other way to substantiate a historical claim OTHER than the classic historical method? If so, by all means offer it. If not - then you cannot substantiate a historical claim about miracles.

No, I'm saying that I do take the resurrection as an historical event, as the writers relay, but the historical method which is restricted to mundane or natural events can not speak to the issue. But that casts no doubt on the veracity of the claims. Why should it?

The you are claiming to accept as true a "historical event" that you are unable to substantiate. You lack any means to do so.

Mathematician 1: The Reimann Hypothesis is true
Mathematician 2: Prove that.
Mathematician 1: We cannot prove this with current mathematical methods
Mathematician 2: Then you have no basis for saying "it's true"
Mathematician 1: I accept it on the face of it.
Mathematician 2: Umm..you are making a mathematical claim. Mathematical claims require mathematical proofs.
Mathematician 1: But we can't prove it with current mathematical methods.
Mathematician 2: Then you have no basis for saying "it's true"
Mathematician 1: I accept it on the face of it. You have to prove I'm wrong.
Mathematician 2: Ummm...exactly where did you get your math degree?

Your argument is equally ludicrous, Seer. You are making a historical claim - acknowledge that historical methodology cannot be brought to bear to show it to be true or false - and then claim you are justified in accepting it "on the face of it." You are welcome to believe it is true if you wish. You simply cannot provide any basis for that historical claim. You are believing something without a foundation on which to base that belief - except assumption. And you are dodging really hard to avoid having to acknowledge that you are asserting a historical claim you cannot show to be true. YOu cannot even show it to be true to yourself.

[JonathanL]

Then we are in agreement.



Seer - do you now of any other way to substantiate a historical claim OTHER than the classic historical method? If so, by all means offer it. If not - then you cannot substantiate a historical claim about miracles.



The you are claiming to accept a true a "historical event" that you are unable to substantiate. You lack any means to do so.

Mathematician 1: The Reimann Hypothesis is true
Mathematician 2: Prove that.
Mathematician 1: We cannot prove this with current mathematical tools
Mathematician 2: Then you have no basis for saying "it's true"
Mathematician 1: I accept it on the face of it.
Mathematician 2: Umm..you are making a mathematical claim. Mathematical claims require mathematical proofs.
Mathematician 1: But we can't prove it with current mathematical methods.
Mathematician 2: Then you have no basis for saying "it's true"
Mathematician 1: I accept it on the face of it. You have to prove I'm wrong.
Mathematician 2: Ummm...exactly where did you get your degree?

Your argument is equally ludicrous, Seer. You are making a historical claim - acknowledge that historical methodology cannot be brought to bear to show it to be true or false - and then claim you are justified in accepting it "on the face of it." You are welcome to believe it is true if you wish. You simply cannot provide any basis for that historical claim. You are believing something without a foundation on which to base that belief - except assumption.

If a historical claim is simply a claim that "a certain something happened in the past", then the fact that secular historical methodology cannot be brought to bear to show it to be true or false, does not mean that you can't be justified in accepting, or that you're unable to provide any basis for the claim. Historical methodology is a self-imposed limitation that the historian puts on himself when he's doing work as a historian, but that does not mean that as an individual he couldn't have legitimate reasons to hold beliefs about alleged past events that he would be unable to make judgements on in his role as a historian.

[carpedm9587]

If a historical claim is simply a claim that "a certain something happened in the past", then the fact that secular historical methodology cannot be brought to bear to show it to be true or false, does not mean that you can't be justified in accepting, or that you're unable to provide any basis for the claim. Historical methodology is a self-imposed limitation that the historian puts on himself when he's doing work as a historian, but that does not mean that as an individual he couldn't have legitimate reasons to hold beliefs about alleged past events that he would be unable to make judgements on in his role as a historian.

That brings us to "what is the basis for accepting this claim as true?" Seer's response is "I accept it on the face of it." I reject that basis as unsound largely because it is not consistently applied. By that argumentation, Seer must accept any historical claim as true until he has cause to believe it false. But that is not the approach he (or anyone else I know) uses in any other context: which makes this an instance of special pleading.

[seer]

That brings us to "what is the basis for accepting this claim as true?" Seer's response is "I accept it on the face of it." I reject that basis as unsound largely because it is not consistently applied. By that argumentation, Seer must accept any historical claim as true until he has cause to believe it false. But that is not the approach he (or anyone else I know) uses in any other context: which makes this an instance of special pleading.

But that is false, I gave you examples of just that, historical events, many of which were antidotes (only verifiable by a the few who were involved) that I did and do take at face value. And I doubt very much that you are automatically skeptical of historical claims. I suspect you read history like the rest of us, you generally take the author at face value. I mean do we really believe that you track down and confirm every historical claim you happen to read in a book?

[carpedm9587]

But that is false, I gave you examples of just that, historical events, many of which were antidotes (only verifiable by a the few who were involved) that I did and do take at face value. And I doubt very much that you are automatically skeptical of historical claims. I suspect you read history like the rest of us, you generally take the author at face value. I mean do we really believe that you track down and confirm every historical claim you happen to read in a book?

No - you gave me examples that I quickly showed were not a parallel, which you ignored. There is no example you have given where you did not have a set of reasons for why you accepted the truth of what was written - rather than just "on the face of it." Not a single one.

And I did not say I was "skeptical of historical claims." I said the degree to which I accept a claim as "most likely true" is a function of the number of elements of the classic historical method that are present for the claim and their quality. I also did not say I track down and and confirm every historical claim - but I also do not "accept them on the face of it." This is a false dichotomy. I check out the author to see what else they have written and how they have been reviewed by other historians. I look for alignment between what is written and what I have already accepted as "most likely true." I look to see what they are using as their sources (primary? secondary?). I spot-check their claims for accuracy and, if all of these things check out, I will accept any other similar claims they make in that context as "most likely true" until I find an opposing claim or contradictory information. Then I dig deeper.

In other words, I look for some of the elements of historical methodology to be present. So do you. If you didn't, I would wonder about your entire approach to accepting truths. Frankly, I'm beginning to.

Prediction: I'm soon to get another example of your "poisoning the well" with a "nonsense" or "that's ridiculous" or some such, and/or yet another accusation of hypocrisy/dishonesty.

[seer]

No - you gave me examples that I quickly showed were not a parallel, which you ignored. There is no example you have given where you did not have a set of reasons for why you accepted the truth of what was written - rather than just "on the face of it." Not a single one.

And I did not say I was "skeptical of historical claims." I said the degree to which I accept a claim as "most likely true" is a function of the number of elements of the classic historical method that are present for the claim and their quality. I also did not say I track down and and confirm every historical claim - but I also do not "accept them on the face of it." This is a false dichotomy. I check out the author to see what else they have written and how they have been reviewed by other historians. I look for alignment between what is written and what I have already accepted as "most likely true." I look to see what they are using as their sources (primary? secondary?). I spot-check their claims for accuracy and, if all of these things check out, I will accept any other similar claims they make in that context as "most likely true" until I find an opposing claim or contradictory information. Then I dig deeper.

So you check to see if other sources or reasons contradict what your author writes. That is exactly what I do with the NT, as I said. I also said I look for historical references in the texts. And much of history relies on secondary sources. As far as what is most likely true - that would leave miracles out according to you. So again, I see no reason not take the NT as reliable and trustworthy.

In other words, I look for some of the elements of historical methodology to be present. So do you. If you didn't, I would wonder about your entire approach to accepting truths. Frankly, I'm beginning to.

Prediction: I'm soon to get another example of your "poisoning the well" with a "nonsense" or "that's ridiculous" or some such, and/or yet another accusation of hypocrisy/dishonesty.

But the problem is there is no historical methodology that could speak to supernatural claims.

[carpedm9587]

So you check to see if other sources or reasons contradict what your author writes. That is exactly what I do with the NT, as I said.

You don't have any "other sources" for the miracle stories - only the passages of the NT writers, all of whom arise from within the same community. You also have no other sources for the details of daily life or the long quoted passages.

I also said I look for historical references in the texts. And much of history relies on secondary sources.

Where you actually DO have other sources (e.g., names of cities, major personages, etc.) I have already acknowledged the high historical likelihood that these historical claims are correct.

As far as what is most likely true - that would leave miracles out according to you. So again, I see no reason not take the NT as reliable and trustworthy.

No. You are the one that keeps narrowing the focus to miracles. I have, from the outset, named three types of historical claim in the NT for which there is inadequate evidence to claim accuracy. Let's see if you can name them. My guess is you haven't paid attention enough to even know what they are.

But the problem is there is no historical methodology that could speak to supernatural claims.

That is correct. So lacking a methodology, you have no way to show their historical likelihood. There ARE historical methods to deal with the other two types of claims, but you lack the evidence required to be even reasonably sure "it happened."

[seer]

You don't have any "other sources" for the miracle stories - only the passages of the NT writers, all of whom arise from within the same community. You also have no other sources for the details of daily life or the long quoted passages.

Good grief! Even if there were extra biblical references for these miracles they would not qualify as historical evidence.